Hi Horse,
  
I know very little knowledge of multi-dimensional math constructs.  You'd be 
better able to identify their severed co-dependencies better than I.   At the 
very least they must be dependent on a consciousness to construct them. 

You haven't answered my first question:  Do you have some letter or post on 
RMP's opinion on reification?  


Marsha  



On Dec 31, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Horse wrote:

> On 29/12/2010 07:16, MarshaV wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> My interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification. The 
>> fourth level  is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, 
>> mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is 
>> as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and 
>> manipulation.  Reification decontextualizes.  Intellectual patterns process 
>> from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that 
>> give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.”  
>> The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the 
>> paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from 
>> the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and 
>> compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and 
>> rational manner.
>> 
>> 
>>> The whole point about your reification idea is that it is a fallacy!
>>> That's why it's referred to as 'The Reification Fallacy' - there's a clue 
>>> there that it might be a fallacy!
>> <SNIP>.
>> 
>>> But if you want to stick to your misinterpretation of reification then 
>>> please answer these questions which I have asked you before but you refused 
>>> to answer.
>>> We'll start off with these:
>>> Tell me how zero is reified
>>> Tell me how the square root of -1 is reified
>>> Tell me how a hypercube is reified
>>> Tell me how multi-dimensional mathematical concepts in a 3 dimensional 
>>> world are reified
>> Marsha:
>> I am not going through each item, but instead will state that when these 
>> elements are separated from processes on which they are co-dependent and 
>> presented as independent entities they have become reified.  Reification is 
>> a condition that separates self from other, and apprehends phenomena as 
>> being independently existent.
> 
> So in other words you can't answer some very simple questions about a subject 
> which you have spent a great deal of time talking about. And the reason for 
> that is that all you have done is, basically, wave your arms about a lot and 
> make general and vague statements. If your idea of reification has any 
> substance at all then the above questions should be simplicity itself to 
> answer. Instead you attempt to duck any questions which may put your ideas to 
> the test, opting instead for more waffling and arm-waving.
> 
> 
>>> These are specific examples, not generalizations, of questions that need to 
>>> be answered if your idea is correct and reification is, indeed, not a 
>>> fallacy.
>> Marsha:
>> You are asking me to disprove a negative.  I have intention of defending 
>> such a position.   Reification is no more fallacious in its relationship 
>> with static patterns of value than it is with the Buddhist concept of 
>> conventional truth.   It represents the conventional way of thinking.
>> 
> 
> Then stop accusing me of things I haven't done (disprove a negative) and try 
> and provide answers to the questions I have asked. As far as I can see it is 
> not possible to reify the concepts of Zero, Sq Rt -1, Hypercube, 
> Multi-dimensional math constructs. And yet you say that all concepts are S/O 
> and reifications. So please explain to me, and anyone else interested - I'll 
> bet there's a few - how these concepts are reified.
> These aren't trick questions or some plot to undermine whatever it is you 
> think I may be doing - I would just like straightforward answers to 
> straightforward questions.
> Are you able to do this? Or will you continue to avoid answering my questions 
> - questions that I have been asking for some time and which have always been 
> met with the same refusal to answer.
> 
> 
> Horse
> 
> -- 
> 
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production 
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___
 

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html

Reply via email to